Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [Sunday 13th May 2012]

[the wopster]

I'm sure a read somewhere that villas turnover was around the £80m mark and their wage bill was around £65m that doesn't leave much room for anything else

 

[drunkenmaster]

I'm sure a read somewhere that villas turnover was around the £80m mark and their wage bill was around £65m that doesn't leave much room for anything else

in 10/11 their turnover was £92mil, their wages were £83mil(Everton were next highest at 58mil-- something Everton can't afford and next highest was Spurs at £91mil, with a £70mil higher turnover, yes, Spurs bring in £70mil more a year yet spend 8mil more in wages than Villa, lol).

This will have gone down as Carew/Reo Coker/Pires/Young/Downing have all gone, since then, I can't remember if Bent came in after that and was included or not. However 100k a week is basically 5mil a year, that is 5 big wage players who have left, and Beye and a couple others since, but increasing wages for those youth players who have new contracts, Bent, and the fact that none of those 5 would be on 100k a week anyway and I don't think their wages will have gone down too much(very possibly 15mil though). Not sure what Pires was on either, I doubt it was a big wage offer, more just wanting another year in the prem but you never know, maybe they paid him an obscene wage.

They are losing money every year, a lot of it, and Villa fans need to be sensible, Wigan are staying in the league with half the wage spending, Villa need to move down closer to that but not necessarily as low. If Villa had gone down, with the vast majority of their income coming from TV they'd have been utterly boned money wise.

Thing is as with Bolton the debt is mostly with the owner as opposed to banks, which is very good, the bad comes from just how much Lerner can afford to lose in the club, how long can he himself pump the extra £40mil a year into Villa, and how much if they got relegated and that because more like 70mil.

Villa need to break even before anything else, O'neill did a Redknapp/Fat sam, ignored wages and plunged the club into wage trouble with players they couldn't get rid of as players had no reason to leave. 60k a week at Villa, or leave, and be on 20k a week.... you can wait 3 years and still leave and be somewhere on 20k a week. Fat Sam helped Villa and Newcastle out, and QPR helping anyone out, by signing those types of players for the same stupid wages, thereby screwing West Ham badly long term.

Ultimately all these clubs are in the situation where if their owners stop being able to cover the losses, they are in serious trouble straight away.

 

[Mr Jack]

These clubs are in trouble because the economics of the Premier League are utterly broken.

 

[Weebull]

I wouldn't say that. The Premier League money distribution isn't horrific. The problem is the prospect of European money, and how that makes people chase the rainbow.

You appear to be agreeing with him.

The disparity between what the top clubs can afford to pay in wages, and what the middle and lower clubs can, is way too much.

 

[Monkeymatt]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the distribution, the problem is with the clubs themselves. A good example the difference in spending at clubs are the promoted teams. QPR bought big name players who have been around in the Prem for several years(Zamora, Wright-Phillips, Ferdinand etc.) whereas Norwich & Swansea bought less well known players from lower divisions. All 3 teams are fairly equal in terms of skill(despite what the table might say) however QPR are spending far more on wages due to the reputation of these players.

Mid-table teams need to stop buying players with reputations who demand large wages and instead invest in less well known players with lower wages, for too long clubs have been run unsustainably and now it is really starting to hurt them all.

 

[timebomb26]

Now he's ripping into Shearer and Lineker on Twitter, this man has no tact..... absolutely zero.

Seriously disgusting what Barton has been saying. Shearer may be one of the more boring pundits, he's still one of the best players to grace the premier league as well as being an England legend. Sort of the polar opposite to Barton.

 

[JohnnyG]

That was awesome yesterday, there's no way I would've enjoyed it had my team been involved but for the neutral it is was great

 

[FrankJH]

Lower clubs can safely stay in the Premier League, without going mental.

Im not 100% convinced, out of those clubs that do stay up for their 2nd year in the EPL, majority go back down quite quickly

I hope Norwich and Swansea stay up for some time to come because of their entertaining style of game play - but odds are stacked against them it has to be said.

The difficulty (in one sense) is the disparity of stadia from the likes of Man Utd/City compared to the smaller clubs - while the likes of Chelsea/Liverpool have relatively small stadia, they have the enormous worldwide fanbase to assist a great deal. The likes of Stoke, Norwich etc who have reasonably normal sized stadia , this side of the economics must be heartbreaking for those involved.

 

[Weebull]

It's not the economics of the Premier League that are the problem, in terms of things the Premier League can actually change. The economics at the European level are the problem. You could say football economics are broken, or European ones are broken... but I think it'd be wrong to say Premier League ones are broken.

Lower clubs can safely stay in the Premier League, without going mental.

I think we're just using different terminologies of "economics" here. I'm using it to mean the spending power of all the clubs in the league, including their money from Europe. I kind of assumed that's how Mr. Jack meant it too.

Also, I'd disagree about the lower teams thing too. I think the monetary gap between the bottom of the PL and the Championship is way too much now, considering the skill level isn't actually that big. What you've now got is a load of clubs who can't easily cope with the financial cost of relegation, even with parachute payments. So that when they drop down to the league below, they're forced to get rid of the majority of their players before they can even think of signing anyone. But those same players are now expecting PL-level wages, so they will just go back and hoover up the wages of whoever's been promoted/is still there, whilst not actually being much better than the players getting paid half as much as them.

 

[Mr Jack]

I think we're just using different terminologies of "economics" here. I'm using it to mean the spending power of all the clubs in the league, including their money from Europe. I kind of assumed that's how Mr. Jack meant it too.

Indeed.

The spending power of the top few clubs forms an effectively exclusive club that can only be sustained by the money from gaining the top slots. That means that any club outside of the top places with ambitions to enter them must pay excessive money for players on the hope of getting in and is basically stuffed if they fail. Instead of being about building a good team, with effective tactics and management, as it is in the lower leagues; it becomes a high stake lottery.

 

[FrankJH]

I still think there should be revenue sharing and a wage cap, in the Premier League, though (and make it pan-European).

So Liverpool fans pay moeny to Frankfurt, and Man Utd fan's money goes to Athletico Bilboa (sp?) , yeah I cant see that happening.........ever

Wage cap would be difficult enough to legalise across one league, let alone across Europe (and with likes of image rights deals, there are ways it may not even work anyway)

 

[Mr Jack]

Yes, clubs can screw themselves if they chase the European dream... but it's entirely possible to stay in the Premier League, if they're not retarded. Therefore I think it's fair to say the Premier League's alright, and it's European football which is broken.

Not really, because you can't win the Premier League without entering into a broken high stakes game. If you're happy to languish forever in mid-table mediocrity; yeah, there's a stable niche there but the economics for top teams who fall slightly, teams trying to get into the top slots, recently promoted teams and recently relegated teams are all horrific.

 

[Weebull]

Yes, clubs can screw themselves if they chase the European dream... but it's entirely possible to stay in the Premier League, if they're not retarded.

Well yeah, but the issue isn't really staying in the league, it's trying to progress beyond that, and what happens if they go down (three teams have to, after all).

I still think there should be revenue sharing and a wage cap, in the Premier League, though (and make it pan-European).

Totally.

 

[Weebull]

So Liverpool fans pay moeny to Frankfurt, and Man Utd fan's money goes to Athletico Bilboa (sp?) , yeah I cant see that happening.........ever

You know the English leagues used to share ticket sales once, don't you?

 

[FrankJH]

You know the English leagues used to share ticket sales once, don't you?

They still do in a sense but obviously not in the way you mean

(with a % of ticket sales going to the away team)

I presume you mean shared out from one big pot, rather than on a game by game basis like now?


Edit - and given the vast amounts of money put into clubs these days, I just cant see chairmen / owners agreeing so easily to changing the system for this kind of thing

 

[FrankJH]

Given it would make them more money, I can see them being in favour of it...

It wouldnt though

The likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, City (and all the other larger stadia clubs) would be paying for the likes of Stoke, Swansea, Norwich etc

As we are talking bums on seats, the larger stadia pay for the smaller ones.....

Im guessing that on average the higher value tickets are also in the same stadia, so if you do it on monitary terms as well (rather than 1 for 1 bum on seat, without considering the face value of the ticket)

 

[FrankJH]

If they shared revenue, and had a wage cap, they could have a more competitive league = more money from TV deals. They could also still keep their commercial revenues, obviously. Then they'd be paying far less in terms of wages = more money for them. Etc.

and your plan would potentially attract less famous /skilled players, and therefore less fans through the turnstyles, less $$ from tv deals in the long run etc etc etc

 

[Mr Jack]

Again, the fault of Europe (and the way there isn't a wage cap).

I really don't think whose fault it is matters.

This conversation started from you saying clubs are in trouble because of Premier League economics... my contention is they're only in trouble through chasing the dream. They could stay out of trouble relatively easily. The talk of having a competitive league, where anyone can realistically win, is a whole other conversation.

So you think clubs, playing in a competitive league, and coming 6th or 7th in the league should just shrug their shoulders and go "oh well, best we can do"?

Clubs should be looking, year on year, to do better than the year before.

 

[Mr Jack]

The fault matters because you were blaming the Premier League, when fault lies at the European level.

I said the economics of the Premier League are broken; they are. I didn't point the finger of blame at anyone.

Wow, there's a strawman. I hate the uncompetitiveness of our sport... but this is a discussion stemming from you saying clubs are in trouble because of Premier League economics. They're not. They're in trouble because clubs have examined the financial situation and taken stupid risks, when they could stay safe very easily.

They could; in the unrealistic situation that they happily accept never advancing up to the top level of the league. It's a Catch 22 created by the economics of the Premier League (including the effect of the European game on it).

 

[Weebull]

Yes, but they've broken the league.

Just admit we're right already.